Again, a few books by a guy named Stevenson isn't scientific documentation of anything — Thanatos Sand

He did follow all the standard scientific protocols in his work, but, as is well known, prejudice will trump science any day of the week.

[quoteHe did follow all the standard scientific protocols in his work, but, as is well known, prejudice will trump science any day of the week. ][/quote]

Right, he followed all the "scientific protocols" to prove past lives. There are no scientific protocols for proving past lives because there is no science for it. As is well, known, gullible foolishness will try to trump science any day of the week.

P.s. Feel free to print any examples of him following any of those "scientific protocols." I do love comedy.

No need, I think you're point has been made abundantly obvious.

Do you realize you never actually addressed my statement above, but just responded with a question? — Thanatos Sand

I started with a question as a preamble, then proceeded with a reply to your question. We can validly assume the existence of something without being capable of answering the questions concerning that thing, which you ask. And I provided an example, gravity. Your questions are irrelevant to the point I was making.

To me it seems more sensible to think of the soul as 'having a body'; the soul is not "had", rather it is the having, so to speak. — John

Right, I agree, that was the point I was trying to make.

Do you realize you never actually addressed my statement above, but just responded with a question?
— Thanatos Sand

I started with a question as a preamble, then proceeded with a reply to your question. We can validly assume the existence of something without being capable of answering the questions concerning that thing, which you ask. And I provided an example, gravity. Your questions are irrelevant to the point I was making.

Actually, you didn't reply to my question, and your statement there and here are both irrelevant to my statement I made.

And my questions were very relevant to the incorrect, erroneous point you were making. in fact, they showed your point you were making was wrong. Here they are again:

Do you understand there is no substantial evidence a soul exists, so you have to establish or at least substantially establish that it does before accounting for how it behaves? Do you understand trying to ascertain how it must behave before doing so is particularly illogical? Do you also understand Gravity is something that can be shown to exist in the natural world while souls are not? Do you realize you never actually addressed my statement above, but just responded with a question?

No need to answer them. As I pointed out, they're rhetorical questions showing how wrong you've been.

I’d said:
.

If anyone thinks that reincarnation requires souls, then I'll remind you that millennia of Buddhists didn't and don't think so.

.
As I've said in a previous post here, I suggest that reincarnation doesn't require anything inconsistent with Skepticism, which doesn't assume anything.

.
Thanatos says:
.

If reincarnation doesn't require souls, the person arguing for its existence needs to assert what it does require.

.
…unless it doesn’t require anything.
.

And reincarnation is very inconsistent with skepticism, which may not assume anything.

.
Thanatos needs to not reply to posts, discussions or topics that he hasn’t read.
.
The metaphysics that I call “Skepticism” doesn’t assume reincarnation.
.
In fact, it doesn’t need or use any assumptions, or posit any brute fact. That’s why I call it “Skepticism”.
.
In particular, I made a point of saying, in an earlier post to this topic, that reincarnation isn’t a part of, or necessary to, Skepticism.
.
*******************************************
Administrators:
.
Consistent, habitual, misquoting, and replying to things that weren’t said are standard behaviors of the typical troll. What is this forum’s policy regarding trolls?
*******************************************
.

but doesn't accept unsupported claims.

.
What unsupported claims does Thanatos think Skepticism accepts? :)
.

And claims of reincarnation are all unsupported.

.
Well, reincarnation is supported by being consistent with a completely parsimonious metaphysics.
.
As for “assumptions”, maybe it’s necessary to remind Thanatos that I said:
.
“It’s well to remember that, in this topic, we’re talking about terra incognita.”
.
Hello? That means that we don’t know.
.
My claim for Skepticism (the metaphysics that I propose), is is a strong one, because I claim that the Principle of Parsimony pretty much settles the matter of which of two metaphysicses is better qualified as valid. My statements about reincarnation are more modest and cautious.
.
Michael Ossipoff

What would 'evidence' consist of? As mentioned previously, there is a large amount of documentation comprising interviews with children who claim to remember previous lives. Why would that not constitute evidence, at least of continuity between one life and another? — Wayfarer

Much as I don't like Sand's posturing, I think there is a logical gap here. A child has memories of being a mechanic; therefore the child has the same soul as the mechanic.

But memories are not soul.

Perhaps the rejection of the notion of an essence brings with it the rejection of the soul.

Much as I don't like Sand's posturing, I think there is a logical gap here. A child has memories of being a mechanic; therefore the child has the same soul as the mechanic.

But memories are not soul. — Banno

But what 'the soul' actually means, is still an open question. As you say above, the standard reading of Buddhism is that 'Buddhism rejects the idea of there being a soul' (or 'substance' in the old-fashioned sense). There's a whole chapter on that in one of the most popular introductory text books on Buddhism. But it makes me uncomfortable, because the folks who insist on there not being a soul, in the West, are behaviourists and materialists of various stripes ('you got no soul, man'). The implication is, humans are 'just' machines, or 'just' organisms, or 'just' automatons. And I'm sure the Buddha doesn't mean that.

What Buddhism actually rejects is hard to understand, because the culture in which the teaching was developed is very different to our own. Furthermore the ideas in the Upanisads about the nature of the 'self' (atman) are divergent and often contradictory - the self as an 'inner knower' which is separate from everything physical (this is an early form of dualism, rather like the Cartesian model, called Samkhya.) Alternately, the self is like a 'minute flame' situated 'in the heart'. The upshot of all these ideas is the idea that there is a soul that is'solitary, like a post set firm or a mountain peak', and that if one gains identity with this self, then one will live eternally i.e. literally be reborn either on earth or in a 'heaven realm' forever. That is why this view is called 'eternalism', which is one of the 'extremes'. (I think the possible modern equivalent is the belief that one will go to heaven and find your possessions, pets and relatives there.)

The other 'extreme view' is nihilism - which is pretty close to what everyone believes nowadays, that death and the break up of the body is the end of that being, there is nothing further.

So the'middle path' rejects both 'eternalism' and 'nihilism'. That is the basis of Madhyamika philosophy. It is quite hard to grasp.

BUT, whether this means there is a 'soul' or not, is still an open question in my view. Most scholars say the Greek word 'soul' is not what the Buddha had in mind when he rejected the Hindu 'atman'. But it is fair to say that the term is not part of the Buddhist lexicon, as neither is the idea of a Creator God.

As I mentioned before, what eventually developed in Buddhism was the idea of the 'citta-santana', or 'mind-stream'. Granted, that is not so much an entity as a process - but still quite an effective stand in for 'soul', I would have thought.

Much as I don't like Sand's posturing, I think there is a logical gap here. A child has memories of being a mechanic; therefore the child has the same soul as the mechanic.

But memories are not soul.

I did no posturing, only cogent argument with the occasional appropriate repartee.

I think that is a bit clearer, Way. The trick then is to talk about reincarnation without talking about souls. SO your answer to my OP is roughly that what is reincarnated is not a "self" and hence is not subject to the issue of identifying the self over multiple incarnations.

That's one answer to the OP I can understand.

SO your answer to my OP is roughly that what is reincarnated is not a "self" and hence is not subject to the issue of identifying the self over multiple incarnations. — Banno

“All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvāṇa, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated.”

“Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple.”

The Diamond Sutra, Chapter 3.

(Mind you, having been aware of this sutra for 30 years, I still find it very hard to fathom.)

It's a cute notion. Reminiscent of climbing the ladder on order to throw it away.

Better to remain silent. :-#

Imagine every living body imbued with consciousness. Each living body would be conscious of itself, of its memories if it had them, of its environment through various senses, of its activity. All these things we could call the contents of consciousness in each case.

One can then ask, what is the difference between your consciousness and mine or a mouse's? And the answer would always be in the contents, not the container. In which case, one could presume that consciousness itself is, like water, everywhere the same, perhaps more or less here or there, but always self-identical, apart from its contents - what it is conscious of.

In which case every incarnation is a reincarnation of consciousness, with or without memory or awareness of this fact. And it is literally true that 'in as much as ye do it unto the least of these my brethren, ye do it unto me.' Karma rules because when one is kind or unkind to another, that other is oneself.

It becomes obvious that consciousness inherits the consequences of its own behaviour through time; if it promotes violence, it will suffer violence, and so on, unto the seventh generation.

As to whether there is any substantial evidence for consciousness, or whether it is a substance at all, I leave to the rest of me to work out between yourselves.

The very act of being conscious of something alters it. We only become conscious of something because it needs to be altered, and the less creative, or more trained the alternation needs to be, the less consciousness is required. The eye of god is cast on you, because you're a shit. Slipping by unnoticed means you're winning!

so, we're the most conscious, because we're the most miserable. Yay us.

One can then ask, what is the difference between your consciousness and mine or a mouse's? And the answer would always be in the contents, not the container. In which case, one could presume that consciousness itself is, like water, everywhere the same, perhaps more or less here or there, but always self-identical, apart from its contents - what it is conscious of.

What is this consciousness made of? And how can it be just contents when it is connected to, affected by, and affecting the human body and mind?

What is this consciousness made of? And how can it be just contents when it is connected to, affected by, and affecting the human body and mind? — Thanatos Sand

Consciousness would be quanta. One and the same. And it is spreading spreading into duration as memory waves.

I don't know. All I am saying is that the difference between you and me is in the contents of our conscious rather than the fact of consciousness.

What is this consciousness made of? And how can it be just contents when it is connected to, affected by, and affecting the human body and mind?
— Thanatos Sand

Consciousness would be quanta. One and the same. And it is spreading spreading into duration as memory waves.

The problem is everything could be quanta, and quanta doesn't inherently become memory waves. One would have to show how they do.

↪Thanatos Sand I don't know. All I am saying is that the difference between you and me is in the contents of our conscious rather than the fact of consciousness.

Sure but you were attributing to it a metaphysical quality it doesn't inherently or conspicuously have, and our conscious cannot physically be separated from our body/brain.

Sure but you were attributing to it a metaphysical quality it doesn't inherently or conspicuously have, and our conscious cannot physically be separated from our body/brain. — Thanatos Sand

Consciousness does lurk in quantum theory interpretation. I am being more explicit, but this type of thinking it's precisely where philosophers should be. Creativity based upon observations is where philosophy should be and exploring.

Consciousness, in this framework, would be one and the same as the physical body as is quanta. It extends though outside of the brain. Athletes and artists refer to this as body or muscle memory. Science is beginning to explore this idea:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070123143605.htm

Sure but you were attributing to it a metaphysical quality it doesn't inherently or conspicuously have, and our conscious cannot physically be separated from our body/brain.
— Thanatos Sand

Consciousness does lurk in quantum theory interpretation. I am being more explicit, but this type of thinking it's precisely where philosophers should be. Creativity based upon observations is where philosophy should be and exploring.

No, it doesn't, not in by serious physicists.

Consciousness, in this framework, would be one and the same as the physical body as is quanta. It extends though outside of the brain. Athletes and artists refer to this as body or muscle memory. Science is beginning to explore this idea:

No, it wouldn't, since the physical body is comprised of mass and energy, consciousness is a concept like the soul. And body memory is a medically recognized physical dynamic; consciousness isn't. And "science" is beginning to explore the existence of alien abductions; it doesn't make it valid.

Sure but you were attributing to it a metaphysical quality it doesn't inherently or conspicuously have, and our conscious cannot physically be separated from our body/brain. — Thanatos Sand

If you want to disagree, don't talk about "our conscious". I'm not attributing any quality whatsoever to it beyond that it has contents which are generally called 'experience'.

What I am doing is turning the question around, and asking what makes someone think that they are not already incarnated in every living being, and suggesting that it is merely the limitation of the senses. Because I don't feel your joy and pain, I tend to think we are separate. It seems a short-sighted notion.

No, it doesn't, not in by serious physicists. — Thanatos Sand

Your characterization of who and what isn't a serious physicist is parenthetical to the discussion.

No, it wouldn't, since the physical body is comprised of mass and energy, consciousness is a concept like the soul. And body memory is a medically recognized physical dynamic; consciousness isn't. And "science" is beginning to explore the existence of alien abductions; it doesn't make it valid. — Thanatos Sand

The to are one and the same, and there is evidence that thinking goes on outside the brain.

If you want to disagree, don't talk about "our conscious". I'm not attributing any quality whatsoever to it beyond that it has contents which are generally called 'experience'.

I talked about "our conscious" because you said "our conscious."

↪Thanatos Sand I don't know. All I am saying is that the difference between you and me is in the contents of our conscious rather than the fact of consciousness.

Glad we agree.

My post indicated no agreement. It just showed you had no place complaining about my using the phrase "our conscious" in my response to you.

What I am doing is turning the question around, and asking what makes someone think that they are not already incarnated in every living being, and suggesting that it is merely the limitation of the senses. Because I don't feel your joy and pain, I tend to think we are separate. It seems a short-sighted notion.

Fine, you can do that as much as you like, just like people can ask what makes someone think God isn't in all of us. But those are both metaphysical notions with no foundation in the physical world. Thinking they do is a short-sighted notion.

No, it doesn't, not in by serious physicists.
— Thanatos Sand

Your characterization of who and what isn't a serious physicist is parenthetical to the discussion.

Since you brought up quantum theory, my correct characterization of what is a serous physicist is completely germane to the discussion.

No, it wouldn't, since the physical body is comprised of mass and energy, consciousness is a concept like the soul. And body memory is a medically recognized physical dynamic; consciousness isn't. And "science" is beginning to explore the existence of alien abductions; it doesn't make it valid.
— Thanatos Sand

The to are one and the same, and there is evidence that thinking goes on outside the brain.

The two are certainly not one and the same and you haven't shown they are in any way. And there is no evidence 'thinking" as we know it goes outside the brain, but feel free to share it if you believe you have some.